The Election Commission told the Bombay High Court in Goa that a missing name in the draft SIR roll is not a deletion. The case highlights how address-change delays can leave voters caught between procedures.
Panaji,Oct 13, 2026 18:14 IST
The Election Commission of India told the Bombay High Court in Goa on Tuesday that the absence of a voter's name from the draft Special Intensive Revision roll does not mean the name has been deleted. The court later reserved its verdict on a writ petition filed by a Goa resident amid a wider controversy over the SIR and the functioning of the ECI.
Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, appearing for the ECI, said a Special Intensive Revision is a fresh preparation of the electoral roll and not a Special Summary Revision, in which an existing roll is only updated. After hearing arguments, the bench of Justices Valmiki Menezes and Amit Jamsandekar reserved judgement.
Six members of Paresh Salgaonkar's family, residents of the St Cruz constituency in North Goa district, filed the writ petition claiming that their names were deleted from the electoral roll during the SIR. Kumbhakoni told the court that an SIR is a comprehensive, de novo exercise in which the electoral roll has to be prepared afresh from the ground up, while a special summary revision updates an existing roll.
"Absence from the draft SIR roll does not automatically amount to deletion," Kumbhakoni said. As the roll is being prepared afresh, a name missing from the draft roll has not technically been deleted, he said. "The summary revision updates the existing electoral roll based on information received through the prescribed procedure while SIR rebuilds the electoral roll through an intensive process based on the enumeration exercise," he stated.
The ECI lawyer also said that, according to the submission, the petitioner had not been residing at the address shown in the pre-SIR electoral rolls for eight to ten years, and had not applied to change his address before the SIR process began. "In fact, my lord, this is a classical case which shows the effectiveness of SIR," Kumbhakoni said. The judges noted that they had made it clear from the beginning that "there is no challenge to the SIR process" itself.
Advocate Vivek Rodrigues, appearing for the petitioner, said the enumeration began on November 4, 2025, and the Booth Level Officer visited both the old and new addresses of the petitioner on November 8, 2025. He said the petitioner contacted the BLO on November 12 and asked for the enumeration form, but the BLO refused because the same had to be delivered at the address recorded in the electoral roll, which was the old address.
Rodrigues said the petitioner later filled Form 8 to change the address. The ECI informed him on December 8, 2025, that the application for change of address had been received, but when the draft roll was published on December 16, his name was missing. He said the BLO told the petitioner that the Form 8 was still under process and had not been rejected. He added that on January 17, 2026, the petitioner received a letter from the ECI saying that his application had been forwarded to the Electoral Registration Officer, while January 19 was the last date to file objections to the draft roll. "On January 21, my application is rejected. So I am neither in the boat nor in the canoe, left in the sea," Rodrigues argued.
The hearing centred on whether a missing name in the draft SIR roll amounts to deletion, with the ECI saying it does not in a fresh roll preparation and the petitioner claiming the process left him without relief even after he sought a change of address. The High Court has reserved its judgement on the writ petition.
- Ends